Northern Lights captured above Minneapolis

[Still Waters]

A spectacular display of the Northern Lights was seen near Minneapolis in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

The lights, which are not normally seen as far south as Minnesota, were a result of a severe solar storm.

http://www.telegraph...inneapolis.html

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

I've only ever seen the northern lights once and they were absolutely awe inspiring.

[Thorvir]

I was hoping that I could see them from here (it's happened once here in my lifetime), but it got cloudy so no go.

[Sundew]

Wow, strange things in Minnesota (other than Jesse).

[Starhunter]

I suppose the world will wonder when they see the northern lights in broad daylight near the equator. But they are there already, all the time, just invisible. Occasionally the invisible becomes visible. Only a fool does not believe what he can't see or perceive by mind, if he has one at all.

[Bendy Demon]

Aww....I missed it!

The only time I seen really bright northern lights in Minnesota was in the mid to late seventies (thereabouts).

I was little and my dad had come home from work and it was about midnight or whatev's and he woke me up and brought me outside.

The sky was just filled with this rippling sheets of lights..looked sort of like giant sheets of metal roofing and it was a bright yellow-green and whitish. (I was little so I might be off on the colors) but that was the only time I recall seeing the northern lights THAT bright.

I am so glad my dad got me out of bed to see that...as I recall it too was a result of a huge solar flare that had erupted and it came quite close to earth too. Really messed with the communications grid from what I read in later years..

[EllJay]

A spectacular display of the Northern Lights was seen near Minneapolis in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

The lights, which are not normally seen as far south as Minnesota, were a result of a severe solar storm.

http://www.telegraph...inneapolis.html

Looked nice. But this is how real Aurora Borealis looks like. >>

http://youtu.be/7o1NX4oq-KE

God's Lightshow

http://youtu.be/fVsONlc3OUY

[ChrLzs]

I suppose the world will wonder when they see the northern lights in broad daylight near the equator.

If that happens, I think the world will have quite a lot of things to worry about, like power supply failures. There will be little to 'wonder' about..

But they are there already, all the time, just invisible. Occasionally the invisible becomes visible.

Please give full details of the mechanism/process by which they become invisible/visible, and why only near the equator. And compare and contrast that claim with the current theory, which explains exactly what we DO see, both at the poles and the equator and every latitude between. Explain where your 'hypothesis' is better, and how it can be tested against the current theory.

Only a fool does not believe what he can't see or perceive by mind, if he has one at all.

Only a bigger fool would come up with a claim that *doesn't* explain what we observe, offer not a single shred of evidence to support that claim, and expect to be taken seriously...

[ChrLzs]

Sorry Chris, but I am restricted in what I may reply. It's only a matter of time before I am totally banned.

ChrLzs. CHRLZS. aka CHARLES.

As for the upcoming ban that apprently you think is inevitable.. perhaps, instead of pretending to have superior knowledge, making wild claims and then not debating or supporting them, you could try being a decent contributor and genuine debater? I've seen your prior work, and it's no wonder you get pulled up. Let's see how you go here.

the auroras occur all around the world

But are invisible except near the poles? In that case they aren't aurora, by any sensible definition. Anyway, please cite your evidence for this claim. If you don't/won't, then consider THAT is the sort of behavior that is leading you towards a departure..

I never suggested that they only occurred at the equator

Sigh. I never said you did. READ what I said - here it is again, with the important bits highlighted:

Please give full details of the mechanism/process by which they become invisible/visible, and why only near the equator

Your claim was that near the equator they were there, but invisible (in fact you just made the claim again, so I didn't misread it..) THAT's what I asked you to cite.

CITE that claim.

And you don't need great solar flares to cause that to happen, even though there is a correlation there.

Again, please CITE your claim that solar flares are not the prime trigger for aurorae, and explain and cite the other factors that are relevant to your claims..

There are two major background forces of matter which can cause a change in the energy consumed by atoms.

'background forces of matter'? What does 'background' mean in that word salad? And those two forces are ...??? CITEs again, please.

In some instances causing atoms to release energy, say in the form of visible light, which is what the auroras are.

By what mechanism? Again, CITEd.

The auroras are more particularly caused by a delay in the time that energy is released.

What is the cause of the delay? What is the length of the delay? What is the mechanism of this process and the source of this energy if not HEPs?

Again, CITEd.

So there is a surplus as they occur.

What do you mean by a surplus? Do you simply mean they give off light - if so, why use 'surplus'?

And yes, an atomic explosion, a solar flare, an electric storm, a volcano, magnetic aberrations, can stimulate these loaded atoms to glow.

Aha, some hints as to where you are going... So show us a table giving the rankings of each of these, and also cite the research showing the correlations and giving examples and the actual data used to come to this hypothesis. This is pretty easy stuff to do, so if you or anyone has done it, then CITE the supporting data.

But if not, a simple imbalance in the greater forces...

How would you measure this imbalance? Please cite how this has been done in the past.

may cause these lights to increase to be visible in broad daylight, which is likely to happen in the near future, because of the instability that nature is showing in our earth, in the unstable weather and increasing earthquakes.

So, you are claiming we have much more frequent aurora now? Again, CITE this.

Note that I have responded politely, Starhunter. I really wish you well in backing all this up, but I have a feeling things are now going to go very quiet (at least in terms of you offering ANY GENUINE RESEARCH/DATA to support your claims. I suspect this may be going to end badly, and if it does, you need to check the mirror for the reason..

If you can provide that supporting data I shall be more than impressed, and will gleefully apologise for my 'tone'. If however, we get another truckload of evasion, unsupported word salad or Gish Galloping.. then be it on your head.

[aquatus1]

ChrLzs. CHRLZS. aka CHARLES.

Holy...all this time I've been mentally pronouncing it "Chris Lazers"

[ChrLzs]

Holy...all this time I've been mentally pronouncing it "Chris Lazers"

hey, I like that - it has a sort of super hero ring..

[aquatus1]

Too late, Chuck.

[Starhunter]

ChrLzs. CHRLZS. aka CHARLES.

As for the upcoming ban that apprently you think is inevitable.. perhaps, instead of pretending to have superior knowledge, making wild claims and then not debating or supporting them, you could try being a decent contributor and genuine debater? I've seen your prior work, and it's no wonder you get pulled up. Let's see how you go here.

But are invisible except near the poles? In that case they aren't aurora, by any sensible definition. Anyway, please cite your evidence for this claim. If you don't/won't, then consider THAT is the sort of behavior that is leading you towards a departure..

Sigh. I never said you did. READ what I said - here it is again, with the important bits highlighted:

Your claim was that near the equator they were there, but invisible (in fact you just made the claim again, so I didn't misread it..) THAT's what I asked you to cite.

CITE that claim.

Again, please CITE your claim that solar flares are not the prime trigger for aurorae, and explain and cite the other factors that are relevant to your claims..

'background forces of matter'? What does 'background' mean in that word salad? And those two forces are ...??? CITEs again, please.

By what mechanism? Again, CITEd.

What is the cause of the delay? What is the length of the delay? What is the mechanism of this process and the source of this energy if not HEPs?

Again, CITEd.

What do you mean by a surplus? Do you simply mean they give off light - if so, why use 'surplus'?

Aha, some hints as to where you are going... So show us a table giving the rankings of each of these, and also cite the research showing the correlations and giving examples and the actual data used to come to this hypothesis. This is pretty easy stuff to do, so if you or anyone has done it, then CITE the supporting data.

How would you measure this imbalance? Please cite how this has been done in the past.

So, you are claiming we have much more frequent aurora now? Again, CITE this.

Note that I have responded politely, Starhunter. I really wish you well in backing all this up, but I have a feeling things are now going to go very quiet (at least in terms of you offering ANY GENUINE RESEARCH/DATA to support your claims. I suspect this may be going to end badly, and if it does, you need to check the mirror for the reason..

If you can provide that supporting data I shall be more than impressed, and will gleefully apologise for my 'tone'. If however, we get another truckload of evasion, unsupported word salad or Gish Galloping.. then be it on your head.

There are no direct references from accepted sources of the things that I say, yet the evidence is already there, but the conclusions drawn are different depending on the observer.

For example, I talked about sprites in one post which was deleted, that they are present globally and that they are lit up occasionally by things like lightning/storm activities. It is assumed that these phenomenon have the same time of appearance as the lit up sprite, yet several photographs over a period of time of these lights indicates that the forms remain in the upper atmosphere, without changing dramatically. So it is obvious that sprites just light up what is there already. But the common community does not agree, because they only believe what they see and not the continuous source of these activities.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Starhunter

[ChrLzs]

There are no direct references from accepted sources of the things that I say

Then you come on back when you DO. In the meantime stop wasting this forum's time and bandwidth with your fantasy claims.

[mskate]

when viewing... you have to accert into the majesty 0f Creation...

Edited July 2, 2015 by mskate

[Starhunter]

Then you come on back when you DO. In the meantime stop wasting this forum's time and bandwidth with your fantasy claims.

I was talking about sources suited to a common caliber of intellect.

Have a look at some photos on the subject, and see what you come up with.

Do you really believe that sprites are a different mechanism than auroras?

I don't want to know your response, just something to think about if you want to.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Starhunter

[ChrLzs]

For the record (and this can be verified at every credible source on the Interwebz...)

AURORA - are caused by the interaction of high energy particles (HEP's) like protons from solar wind and CME's, cosmic rays and magnetospheric plasma with the upper atmosphere. These particles/rays cause various ionisation/excitation effects and produce colorful light displays. Due to the nature of the Van Allen Belts and the concentration of magnetic fields at the poles, they are only seen near the poles, although if there are large numbers of particles, eg after a major CME from the Sun, they may be seen at mid latitudes. They normally form at 90km and higher, but on rare occasions may extend up to 1000km.

SPRITES - are luminous electrical discharges (cold plasma) that occur above thunderstorm systems and cumulonimbus clouds. They are believed to be 'balancing' discharges, triggered by the normal visible lightning strikes, but unlike lightning, they consist of 'cold' fluorescent plasma. Because of their location above large thunderclouds, they are very rarely witnessed by ground observers, and usually occur about 60-80 km up.

The two are unrelated, other than displaying (different types of) plasma effects.

[Likely Guy]

Holy...all this time I've been mentally pronouncing it "Chris Lazers"

'CHRist LaZaruS', that whas my first intimation. and then I quickly realized, "Nope".

[ChrLzs]

If you must know.. it's a combination of my childhood nickname (Charlie), and a sly reference to CHaRLes SchulZ, Snoopy's creator and author of the Peanuts comic strip.

And it ties neatly with my interest in, and intense admiration for, NASA's Apollo moon missions - Snoopy was a mascot for the entire Apollo program, and the communications cap they wore under their helmets was called a Snoopy Helmet - it gave them black droopy ears just like mine...

And of course the Van Allen Belts were an important consideration for Apollo.. so there we are, I have almost got it back on topic...

[Starhunter]

For the record (and this can be verified at every credible source on the Interwebz...)

AURORA - are caused by the interaction of high energy particles (HEP's) like protons from solar wind and CME's, cosmic rays and magnetospheric plasma with the upper atmosphere. These particles/rays cause various ionisation/excitation effects and produce colorful light displays. Due to the nature of the Van Allen Belts and the concentration of magnetic fields at the poles, they are only seen near the poles, although if there are large numbers of particles, eg after a major CME from the Sun, they may be seen at mid latitudes. They normally form at 90km and higher, but on rare occasions may extend up to 1000km.

SPRITES - are luminous electrical discharges (cold plasma) that occur above thunderstorm systems and cumulonimbus clouds. They are believed to be 'balancing' discharges, triggered by the normal visible lightning strikes, but unlike lightning, they consist of 'cold' fluorescent plasma. Because of their location above large thunderclouds, they are very rarely witnessed by ground observers, and usually occur about 60-80 km up.

The two are unrelated, other than displaying (different types of) plasma effects.

That's a textbook response, any goon can do that, I want to know what you are capable of, but if not, then you leave me choice but to think that you are a reflector or other men's thoughts and not capable of your own.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

That's a textbook response, any goon can do that, I want to know what you are capable of, but if not, then you leave me choice but to think that you are a reflector or other men's thoughts and not capable of your own.

It takes understanding to give a text book response. Understanding of the science involved. Understanding of the evidence.

What a real goon does is just make up total rubbish, refuse to provide ANY evidence to support the rubbish they have made up, claim that the rubbish they have made up is proof if "individual thinking" when it is, in fact, evidence that no thought, understanding or logic have been used at all. A goon resorts to personal attacks against those that DO know what they are talking about.

It seems to me that there is goonery going on in this thread but it is most definitely NOT coming from ChrLzs.

[Starhunter]

It takes understanding to give a text book response. Understanding of the science involved. Understanding of the evidence.

What a real goon does is just make up total rubbish, refuse to provide ANY evidence to support the rubbish they have made up, claim that the rubbish they have made up is proof if "individual thinking" when it is, in fact, evidence that no thought, understanding or logic have been used at all. A goon resorts to personal attacks against those that DO know what they are talking about.

It seems to me that there is goonery going on in this thread but it is most definitely NOT coming from ChrLzs.

It takes a monkey to look at old stuff, but genuine discoveries start with a new page in the mind, and which only another mind as such can appreciate. If people are not ahead with that, the truth will simply not appeal to them and they have to wait like all goons do, for someone else to discover it for them, in ways that they will believe it is true, such as with repetitions, illustrations, pictures, back up by what they think are reliable sources.

There are many things which other people are aware of that will only be revealed in the future to goons, because they are incapable of discerning what is real and what is not. Anything which does not fit into their stuffy minds, is rejected, how the hell do they think they could advance without introducing new thought? But they are afraid of being labelled mental, because of the way that they have treated people who are.

To be very frank with you, the level of intelligence on this forum is typical of science forums, very low, if not totally nonexistent.

Your regular contributors and critics are practically mindless, they have no ability to work things out and need every thought to be coated with fashionable thinking.

Evidence of this is the fact that after thousands of posts, with hundreds of contributors, nothing new has come forward, no better insight, no discoveries of nature, absolutely nothing that the world has not known. Zero intelligence, and yet all those opportunities through communication. Instead you are literally waiting around for crumbs off the tables of science, and then on top of that pretending to be scientifically minded - how self deceived is that?

The capacity to think for themselves is simply not there. Reflectors of other men's thoughts, passing around had thoughts, sharing semi dried regurgitations of information.

The trouble with the system which does not allow credibility for individual thought, claims your mind as well, and you end up believing that you are incapable and untrustworthy to be able to push the frontiers of discoveries. Is that what you believe?

What you have not been able to do is proof of that.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Starhunter

[ChrLzs]

Starhunter, even as a 'monkey' and a 'goon', I'm noticing something... Perhaps you can help educate me on this and explain why it is happening...

What I have noticed is this.. Amongst all your ad hominems and suggestions of superior knowledge... Not once have you pointed out an error in the 'mainstream knowledge. Not once have you offered a way to test your 'alternative' theories. Not once have you explained why your 'theories' are better. Indeed, not once have you actually elaborated on these fantasies oops sorry, "theories".

Not once.

Not even a shred, or a small sign from above...

Not anything even approaching a half-hearted attempt to show where the information I gave above is wrong.

Me, I would have thought that having a good knowledge of the current science and how it was arrived at, would make a good foundation for moving forward. And that by showing in detail the obvious errors in mainstream understanding, you could dash stupid people like me into the gutter where I belong with my goon- and monkey-like friends...

But no, just more handwaves, and nothing specific whatsoever...

Ah well. Clearly, I am delusional, unworthy of even speaking in your presence. But I'd still love to hear you explain this rather striking avoidance of anything concrete..... So can you explain? Obviously I won't get it, but I'm sure others will.

[Starhunter]

There is nothing hard about what I have put forward. Wait for about 18 months? the world is fast catching up.

In short, matter is not self existent, it is an effect created by forces far bigger and more complex than matter. The material universe is a creation, not a big accident. If that is the case, then matter is changeable, which means that known physical laws have a bigger context, and can be changed as well, relative to normal matter.

The modern world has known about this in secret since the 1850's.

Which means there is technology out there which defies 'scientific' reasoning.

I'm repeating myself again, for the 8th time in this forum?

In respect to the northern lights, these are not caused by the magnetic field and cosmic bombardment from the sun, but by changes in the background forces which make up matter.

[bmk1245]

You know, starhunter, you remind me of an "openminded" guy, who didn't believed "in lies perpetrated by scientists" that death cap (Amanita phalloides) is poisonous. Would you guess what happened to him when he ate those mushrooms? Right. He died...

All your word salads were, are, and will be just word salads...

Edited August 3, 2015 by bmk1245